Recent posts

#1

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Would you rather...?

Last post by Baylee - Today at 11:14:22 AM

Baylee,
clearly they were joking back and forth at our (sedes) expense; I was going to do the same back at them, but it came out sounding too snarky. Don't get in a huff and leave, just take it for what it is worth.

Some do not have the thick skin needed for fora life.

Oh, I've got plenty thick skin otherwise I would not have challenged you a number of times in the past few weeks.  I choose to walk away.   

I refuse to worry that my comments are too much for others to handle.  It seems that you coddle those who don't have thick skin and can't possibly deal with my strong opinions on certain matters. Despite them and contrary to your assertion, I have striven to be charitable.  You, on the other hand, do not strive to do so. Hypocrite.

Those who huff and puff "I'm leaving" usually don't tend to do so.

The issue has never been your strong opinions. It has been your posting of them all over your forum.

As @Kaesekopf remarked, there's more to life than sedevacantism. Maybe not for you, though.

"All over the forum". I'd love to see the evidence. 

#2

The Sedevacantist Thesis / Re: 1P5 Article: The New Rite ...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 11:10:11 AM

I missed J.M's response:

No Protestant would every dare to state that the Lord's Supper is celebrated under the presidency of a sacerdos, as to them it is considered a blasphemy to assert that any one is a priest of the new covenant aside from Christ; but that aside, Cardinal Ottaviani is not an authority to quote in your favor, as we shall see.

But a Protestant would say that the priest merely "presides" over the assembly and that the Mass is merely a commemoration of the Last Supper, and not the "unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Mt. Calvary"; and that Our Lord's presence is merely a "spiritual" one, not His real physical presence.
There are real historical reasons to doubt the note signed by Cardinal Ottaviani in which he ostensibly
gives his O.K. To the N.O.M. Based on some discourse given by Paul VI; said discourse which did nothing to correct the evident deficiencies of the N.O.M. Which persist even to this day.
Which of course leads inevitably to the question of the legitimacy of the Conciliar Popes. 

#3

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Would you rather...?

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 11:08:20 AM

Baylee,
clearly they were joking back and forth at our (sedes) expense; I was going to do the same back at them, but it came out sounding too snarky. Don't get in a huff and leave, just take it for what it is worth.

Some do not have the thick skin needed for fora life.

Oh, I've got plenty thick skin otherwise I would not have challenged you a number of times in the past few weeks.  I choose to walk away.   

I refuse to worry that my comments are too much for others to handle.  It seems that you coddle those who don't have thick skin and can't possibly deal with my strong opinions on certain matters. Despite them and contrary to your assertion, I have striven to be charitable.  You, on the other hand, do not strive to do so. Hypocrite.

Those who huff and puff "I'm leaving" usually don't tend to do so.

The issue has never been your strong opinions. It has been your posting of them all over your forum.

As @Kaesekopf remarked, there's more to life than sedevacantism. Maybe not for you, though.

#4

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Would you rather...?

Last post by Baylee - Today at 11:04:26 AM

Baylee,
clearly they were joking back and forth at our (sedes) expense; I was going to do the same back at them, but it came out sounding too snarky. Don't get in a huff and leave, just take it for what it is worth.

Some do not have the thick skin needed for fora life.

Oh, I've got plenty thick skin otherwise I would not have challenged you a number of times in the past few weeks.  I choose to walk away.   

I refuse to worry that my comments are too much for others to handle.  It seems that you coddle those who don't have thick skin and can't possibly deal with my strong opinions on certain matters. Despite them and contrary to your assertion, I have striven to be charitable.  You, on the other hand, do not strive to do so. Hypocrite.

#5

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Follow-up on N.O.M.

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 10:57:40 AM

Thank you for that correction.  My point was that -- assuming that the Church's permanent requirements of essential form and matter are present -- if the sacraments cannot be said to be valid at all (all 7 or any of them), then I would have to conclude that the Church as a whole has defected.

That the "essential form and matter" is present in all the new sacramental rites (apart from their validity) is disputed outside of "sede-land"

I do understand that the sede position is "two churches," but I cannot find theological support for that.

This "explanation" is not the sede one it actually comes from Cardinal Villot, the Secretary of State of the Vatican under Paul VI in an official letter addressed to Msgr. Lefebvre, demanding his submission to the "Conciliar Church''; Msgr. L. Himself adopted this view in rejecting the Council and the authority of Paul VI and J.P. II, to shut down his seminary and to excommunicate him for consecrating 4 bishops without Papal permission (actually against the orders of the Pope). See Stubborn's (a non sed/anti sed)quote above. 

If any of the sacraments are "no longer valid," then logically, one has to take one of two positions:

(1) There's a "real" Catholic Church without universally acknowledged governance against a "false" Catholic Church with acknowledged governance.  (The 2-Church thesis)

i.e. The position of Msgr. Lefebvre up to the time of his death. 

or

(2) There remains a single Catholic Church which has become unreliable in all of its declarations.  (Why stop at sacraments?)  As we all know, indefectible does not mean perfect in its individual membership nor its leadership; it means ultimately incorruptible.  A Church which lacks credibility in its official declarations of binding dogma (not opinion and theories but binding dogma -- i.e., truths) has become corrupted.

Which would mean that our Lord's promises have failed as the Catholic Church has become indistinguishable from any of the multitude of false sects; leading souls into error, sin and perdition.

#6

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Would you rather...?

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 10:53:49 AM

Baylee,
clearly they were joking back and forth at our (sedes) expense; I was going to do the same back at them, but it came out sounding too snarky. Don't get in a huff and leave, just take it for what it is worth.

Some do not have the thick skin needed for fora life.

I also would not lump you in with someone like the poster known as "Baylee."

When someone like Käsekopf went to a Diocesan seminary, I recall that you asked him how it was.

You did not immediately opine how he would have been invalidly ordained, etc.

That is the difference.

#7

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Would you rather...?

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 10:44:31 AM

Baylee,
clearly they were joking back and forth at our (sedes) expense; I was going to do the same back at them, but it came out sounding too snarky. Don't get in a huff and leave, just take it for what it is worth.

#8

Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Engaging with the Eastern ...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 10:34:09 AM

There should not be any saints that are venerated in one rite or the other; a saint in one rite is a saint in the whole Church. However there has been an "ecumenical" tendency in the Eastern rites towards Orthodoxy since Vatican II, corresponding to the ecumenical movement in the Western rites towards Protestantism. It results from the loss of the teaching that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and the necessity of belonging to the Church in order to be saved (understood as the Church has always understood this doctrine).
Palamas is not a saint, as he was never a Catholic and worse he rejected the Catholic doctrine on the simplicity/unity of the divine essence.
 

#9

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Would you rather...?

Last post by Baylee - Today at 10:28:42 AM

Well you two are on a roll.  What are you trying to accomplish by mocking those of us who have strong opinions on the invalidity of new order priests/where we prefer to assist mass?

This forum is the virtual house/cafe/meetup spot for the "two of us."

I am not sure who you are claiming to speak on behalf of when you use the first person plural pronoun of "us."

Here is a clear example of you interjecting your belief that the new rites of ordination and consecration are invalid into a discussion that did not broach these topics:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=31538.msg629717#msg629717

The OP is clearly not a sedevacantist, SSPXer, etc. and stated she went to her "local parish." Also, a quick glance at her posting history demonstrates she has demonstrable anxiety and scruples regarding many issues in her life.

It is clearly your view that the best course of action in that moment was for you to post what you did, and promote your "party line" on the current situation in the Church.

I've been around for a long time, and the most prolific, intelligent, and charitable Sedevacantist posters I knew ( @Michael Wilson or @INPEFESS ) did not do this, either on this, or other forums, that they participated on.

So, I can post exactly what I posted, and if you don't like it, it's on you. I am not going to stand by and allow one invited into our virtual "house" or "coffee shop" to proceed to call all of my guests who are non-sede as having a position aligned with non-Catholics/enemies of the Church, or to constantly tell people who go to their local parish that all of their sacraments are invalid. It would be bad hospitality on my part, if nothing else.

Would you like me to leave the forum? If so just say the word because your childish/rude behavior is getting old.

If either of us wanted you gone, it would be done in an instant. As Tony Soprano said, "You probably don't even hear it when it happens, right?"

Neither of us, nor anyone for that matter, forces anyone to log in, type, and hit the post button.

So only YOUR party line is allowed, and I must walk on eggshells if I don't fit YOUR party line.  And you can continue to be rude and mocking while you do it.  Bye.

#10

Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Engaging with the Eastern ...

Last post by DuxLux - Today at 10:24:23 AM

The very same icon can be venerated outside of said religious service, as long as it is a saint of the Catholic Church.

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between saints only venerated in Eastern Rite Catholicism and vice versa in the Latin Church? For example the case of Gregory Palamas?